Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago
Elliot supposedly extended the ball past the marker. But was tackled with it well behind the marker. On goal line once ball crosses the GL, the play is dead; but it doesn't work this way at the 20.

To argue the ball should be ruled down at its furthest point, one must argue that this is the furthest point were forward progress was achieved. Unfortunately, review is only available to determine where a guy got tackled with the ball; it cannot be used to review forward progress.

It's amazing a room full of refs forgot this point during review; but ultimately, its GB's fault.

Our staff, like most others, simply doesn’t have unerring expertise with the rules. I’ve said this before, they need some sort of expert to tell these things to McCarthy.
Zero2Cool
7 years ago
Only flag/play that really kind of ticked me off was the penalty on Blake Martinez on 3rd down that ended up giving the Cowboys 4 more points. I do not know the rule well enough to know it was/was not a penalty. But, the broadcasters and people on twitter and that former head of officials said it was a bad call. I just don't know why New York can't chime in and say hey, pick up that flag. If it's going to change points or who has the ball, I think you gotta make that a little more accurately.


Edit, I think Elliott's reach was the peak of his forward progress. No issue with that play at all.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago
When they say forward progress cannot be reviewed, it means the decision to call the play dead because of stopped progress, that cannot be reviews.

Spot of the ball always can be.

If you say, they can't review the Elliot play, they also wouldn't have been able to review McCarthy's challenge prior that took the 1st down away.


I've never liked the forward progress rule in situations like this, but I don't know if there is a way to fix it. In this case it is clear Elliot pulled the ball back under his own power, not that he was pushed backwards.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago
The Martinez penalty was BS; but ya gotta give the refs a break based on what they may have seen in real time. If that was reviewed, I'd bet the flag gets picked up. Not sure this stuff should be reviewed, it's lead to 3-4-5 reviews per game.

PFWT,

The play before, McCarthy challenged the spot of the ball where Beasley was tackled.

Elliot was tackled and ball spotted 1/2 yard short, that spot was reviewable and it was correct, that's where Elliot was tackled with the ball. But, the refs didn't review the spot of the ball; they reviewed the point of Elliot's most forward progress [the reach].

Forward progress is a judgment as to "when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends." Of course, once a ref believes FP was achieved he blows the whistle. The review doesn't let us know when the whistle blew, nor can it be used as a substitute for a ref's judgment call.

If they saw the ball extended and Elliot's knee or elbow down, then okay, that's reviewable and I get the reversal. But, Elliot had flown thru the air and landed on a pile of bodies; he was not down unless a ref judged his forward progress stopped. Had he got pushed back and landed on his feet; he could have kept running first down around end or tried diving again, unless play was blown dead.

Note: if Elliot pulled ball back on his own accord, then that's is not the point of forward progress!

Note: On GL, the forward progress doesn't come into play because once the ball breaks the plane, the play is dead.
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago
I don't remember how the announcers or officials described it but Let me see if I can explain it better for you.

Forward progress has nothing to do with the ball. It is about the forward movement of the ball carrier. So the challenge wasn't about forward progress, it was about the spot of the ball at the time of the forward progress being stopped.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
beast
7 years ago

Only flag/play that really kind of ticked me off was the penalty on Blake Martinez on 3rd down that ended up giving the Cowboys 4 more points. I do not know the rule well enough to know it was/was not a penalty. But, the broadcasters and people on twitter and that former head of officials said it was a bad call. I just don't know why New York can't chime in and say hey, pick up that flag. If it's going to change points or who has the ball, I think you gotta make that a little more accurately.


Edit, I think Elliott's reach was the peak of his forward progress. No issue with that play at all.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I agree with the announcer's ref... that Martinez hit was not a penalty because the rule states it needs to be a forcible blow to the head/neck and Martinez's arm was a glance blow at best... and as Aikman added, if anything Martinez was avoiding the hit, not causing it... as Martinez went around, playing the ball, not the WR.

I still believe the ref saw Martinez arm glace Dez's helmet, saw Dez laying there motionless and flat on the ground and threw the flag to cover his own ass, because I think IF it was a penalty and he doesn't call it, his ass is going to be chewed out big time... where IF it isn't a penalty and he calls out, he's just going to be told he got it wrong. As I think the refs are told to side towards calling player safety rules.

But Dez was laying there motionless and flat on the ground because he was pouting about his dropped touchdown... not because he was injured by a hit in the head.
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago

I don't remember how the announcers or officials described it but Let me see if I can explain it better for you.

Forward progress has nothing to do with the ball. It is about the forward movement of the ball carrier. So the challenge wasn't about forward progress, it was about the spot of the ball at the time of the forward progress being stopped.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



EXACTLY! And that is not reviewable!

A ball spotted at a certain point due to FP [as opposed to a ball spotted at a certain point due to a player downed by contact] is not reviewable!
beast
7 years ago


The play before, McCarthy challenged the spot of the ball where Beasley was tackled.

Elliot was tackled and ball spotted 1/2 yard short, that spot was reviewable and it was correct, that's where Elliot was tackled with the ball. But, the refs didn't review the spot of the ball; they reviewed the point of Elliot's most forward progress [the reach].

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



If I understand the rule correctly (and I am NOT sure that I do), the reviews got both the Beasley and Elliot calls correct. As the ball gets marked at the furthest distances while the player is either downed, touched or held up.

In the case on Beasley on his horizontal route... the ball went further than he did and he grabbed the ball and brought it back to him while he was NOT being touched or held up. So the ball does NOT get placed at the further distances, because he was not downed, touched or held up there.

Meanwhile Elliots extra reach forward happened while he WAS being touched or held up and therefore that counts, and the fact that he brought it back doesn't matter. So the ball does get placed at the further distance, because he was either downed, touched or held up there.

UserPostedImage
buckeyepackfan
7 years ago
My only question on the Zeke play was the camera they used to make the final call.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I got from the guys in the booth was that camera angle is not available in most stadiums.

Would like to hear others thoughts on that.

In the end it all worked out.

Most of the time, bad calls will even themselves out over the season, with exceptions (FAIL Mary 😁).

So maybe we have one in the bank for the future.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
beast
7 years ago

EXACTLY! And that is not reviewable!

A ball spotted at a certain point due to FP [as opposed to a ball spotted at a certain point due to a player downed by contact] is not reviewable!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I believe the NFL refs would disagree with you.

I think Forward Process can't be reviewed, to say if the play was over or not.

But the actual ball spot is reviewable even during forward process plays.


This is the forward process part that is nor reviewable... they blew the play dead, so what happened after the whistle does not count. But the Vikings could of challenged the ball spot.



UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (15h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (15h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Rude!
beast (19h) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (23h) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

15h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.